Legal Opinion

Mywebgrocer, Inc. v. Adlife Mktg. & Commc'ns Co.

District Court, D. Vermont

Decided February 4, 2019No. Case No. 5:16-cv-310PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Defendant's second argument is that plaintiff is not a consumer because it did not buy goods or services from defendant. The argument is essentially that privity of contract between the parties is a necessary element of a consumer fraud claim. In Elkins v. Microsoft Corp. , 174 Vt. 328, 817 A.2d 9 (2002), the Vermont Supreme Court rejected the argument that the VCPA required privity between the parties. The court relied on the language of the VCPA which permits "any consumer" damaged by a false or fraudulent representation or practice to sue "the seller, solicitor or other violator ...." 9…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Carter v. GugliuzziSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
  2. Elkins v. Microsoft Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  3. Poulin v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1986
  4. Foti Fuels, Inc. v. Kurrle Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2013

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. RSD Leasing, Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2023
  2. Adlife Marketing & Communications Company, Inc. v. Buckingham Brothers, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2020
  3. Adlife Marketing & Communications Compay, INC v. Karns Prime and Fancy Food LTDDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
  4. Concepts NREC, LLC v. QiuDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2025
  5. Concepts NREC, LLC v. QiuDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2025

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API